click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
the afghanistan campaign. and there we find another find of the coffee out. it turns out -- caveat. it turns out some allies simply do not wish to make more where there were no shooting battles. some did it one to fight unless they have helicopters there were all of these rules than pretty soon we started to see the folks who wanted to send soldiers out to the field to have almost insulting checklist so this starts to develop in buy the way i am very careful when a make a statement about the caveat because i don't mean in any way to cut down on the bravery of the troops who are helping us americans out there. and the germans are not very willing to fight because of a historical precedent. it is very difficult for the germans to get over second world war history. please don't and feud any other motive into that. so now you have a copy ought with afghanistan where we're not prepared to use the allies because it is a different kind of four in technology have left them behind and estonia started to do something the russians didn't like then there was a cyberattack that plan and the estonian governme
side the something was not right. something was not right. then let's move on to afghanistan. there came a time when it -- by the way, if you have not read about the account of what a few hundred special forces and armed cia people did in a few weeks in afghanistan after a sit-in for 11th, it is really worth reading. basically destroyed the camps, just a few hundred of them, including some wonderful cavalry horse charges. it's quite a story. but, in 2003 in the united nations says we need to know start stabilizing afghanistan. native took over the afghanistan campaign. and there we find yet another fault line developing. vendettas of fall line whose so-called caveat. some european allies simply did not wish to make war. it wanted areas where there were no shootings. others didn't want to fight at night. some didn't want to fight unless they have helicopters and so on. there were all these roles. we started to see folks who wanted to send soldiers out into the field consulting checklists to see what soldiers you could send out and what you could not. so this starts to develop.
the war's we have got accustomed to with vietnam, iraq, afghanistan is they are fraught mostly and there are very few among fed dead and wounded who were sensa and daughters of ceos, senators, members of congress or anything like that. it was the exact opposite and avert -- first world war the death toll fell proportionally higher on the upper class. the main reason for that was it was customary four sons of the upper class and aristocracy to have military careers. one major reason for this is that armies are not only there to fight wars against other countries but to maintain order at home. the 19th century was a tumultuous time in europe so was yearly 20th century and european armies were used to break strikes with the british army put down rebellions in ireland and so therefore the officer was generally reserved for those of the upper class is meeting when the country's went to war in 1914 come in the upper class is suffer the enormous toll. for example,, for the 30 graduates of the 10 killed in a single day, the first day of the battle in 1916 come the men who graduated fro
'm not a warmonger i don't want another war. we are already tied up in iraq, afghanistan and for some reason libya. but the only way to stop iran is with clear military force. sanctions are great but at the end of the day they are not going to work. at the end of the day iranian regime is motivated by, again, an ideology. it's a messianic ideology. they truly believe and they will shape policy around this, the iranian government truly believe that they can punish in the end times. >> host: this would be the 12th? >> guest: that goes by various names. he is the islamist must live. this all sounds crazy i know but they really believe this. the likes of ahmadinejad. they believe that if they strike out against israel, if they acquire nuclear weapons, if there's a ton of great global chaos and a people which are seeing right now with this arab spring, they believe that can hasten the return of the islamist messiah who believed lead them to victory over israel and the west. so acquiring nuclear weapons is part of that divine plan. nothing will deter them or dissuade them from this goal. they believe it
-- vietnam, iraq, afghanistan -- is that they are fought mostly by the poor. there are very, very few among the dead and wounded in the those three wars who have been sons or daughters of ceos, senators, members of congress, anything like that. it was the exact opposite in the first world war. the death toll actually fell proportionately higher on the upper classes. and the main reason for that was that it was customary for sons of the upper classes, sons of the air strock rah si to have military careers. and i think a major reason for this is that armies are not only there to fight wars against other countries, they're there to maintain order at home. the 19th century was a very tumultuous time in europe, so was the early 20th century. many of the european armies were used to break strikes or the british army, you know, put down tenant farmer rebellions in ireland. and so, therefore, officering the army was something that was generally reserved for people in the upper classes. this meant that when these countries went to war in 1914, these upper classes suffered an enormous toll. for examp
out to be a disaster and even had negative effects on the war in afghanistan. it was an ill-conceived scheme, so all the resistance that existed in congress and in the american body politic was basically correct. all the people who oppose the war were smart and president bush and his lieutenants were wrong. i want to be very clear here, i do not think president bush and his lieutenants lied for selfish reason. they lied and they took the united states into the war in iraq because they thought it was in the american national interest. they thought they were doing good for america. but the fact is they blew it. they didn't pursue a smart policy and the naysayers had the stronger hand to play and it is just too bad they didn't carry the day. >> host: in 1976 jimmy carter's campaign, i will never lie to you was one of the lines he used. did he live up to that promise? >> guest: no, he told at least one lie that i know of and that is, when it became clear that the iran rescue mission was going to be exposed, he had jody powell who was his press secretary, lie to the news man who
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6